en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/949464 Comments by JohnFinch95 http://bigjournalism.com/sgrammatico/2010/04/24/behind-the-scenes-of-the-south-park-follies-msm-style/#IDComment70316753 Yes, and I wish they did. I just don't see the decision to censor themselves as a bias in favor of Islam because they only did it after hearing death threats aimed at their employees. Fear of something is not bias in its favor. If that was the case, why would they even air a show mocking Islam? Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:28:35 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sgrammatico/2010/04/24/behind-the-scenes-of-the-south-park-follies-msm-style/#IDComment70316753 http://bigjournalism.com/sgrammatico/2010/04/24/behind-the-scenes-of-the-south-park-follies-msm-style/#IDComment70311029 The decision to censor the episode displayed a lack of courage by CC, but its misguided to connect this to an anti-Christian bias by the left. Keep in mind that the point of the episode was to mock Islam for its extreme views, and Jon Stewart's report on this included acknowledgments of respect and gratitude for Christians and Jews (and every other religion besides Islam) for their ability to take criticism without resorting to threats and violence. Everyone can agree that the Islamic religion is wrong in failing to renounce such behavior. An arguably cowardly decision by CC shouldn't be confused with a favorable bias, as they clearly have just the opposite. Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:38:45 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sgrammatico/2010/04/24/behind-the-scenes-of-the-south-park-follies-msm-style/#IDComment70311029 http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2010/04/10/california-dreamin-rachel-maddow-and-gov-moonbeam-cover-up-the-real-acorn-scandal/#IDComment67305207 I agree its tedious, just noting that the attack on O'Keefe aren't due to admiration for ACORN, they are against fabricated media attacks that cause real-world consequences. Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:50:32 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2010/04/10/california-dreamin-rachel-maddow-and-gov-moonbeam-cover-up-the-real-acorn-scandal/#IDComment67305207 http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2010/04/10/california-dreamin-rachel-maddow-and-gov-moonbeam-cover-up-the-real-acorn-scandal/#IDComment67299182 I know the only thing that matters is what they said, but the fact is that he was only saying those things to collect information that he gave to the police. The voter fraud issue is separate from this, you don't attack voter fraud with fabricated prostitution claims. The point of the story being reported by the left is not to defend ACORN against voter fraud, its to point out the power the media has and the impact it can cause when practiced irresponsibly. Whether or not they committed voter fraud made no difference because their downfall was this "pimp" incident. It's a critique against irresponsible "journalism" more than a defense of ACORN, this could have been done to any non-profit organization with the same effect. Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:04:23 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2010/04/10/california-dreamin-rachel-maddow-and-gov-moonbeam-cover-up-the-real-acorn-scandal/#IDComment67299182 http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2010/04/10/california-dreamin-rachel-maddow-and-gov-moonbeam-cover-up-the-real-acorn-scandal/#IDComment67169977 The problem is that ACORN was destroyed publicly for supposedly helping a pimp/prostitute even though they weren't really trying to help them, they actually called the police on O'Keefe. That was released in the investigation report. And the entire point of adding the pimp costume to the video was to make it seem like he wore it into the office, why else would he film himself in it? Sat, 10 Apr 2010 23:26:17 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/bshapiro/2010/04/10/california-dreamin-rachel-maddow-and-gov-moonbeam-cover-up-the-real-acorn-scandal/#IDComment67169977 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66463369 It doesn't take any twisting to see that here, that's pretty \"obvious\"Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:17:05 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66463369 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66332311 Well maybe it doesn't always, but we unfortunately have to listen to it. That much IS clear in the Constitution. Wed, 7 Apr 2010 04:27:33 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66332311 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66322648 I didn't wanna have to go here, but: "Congress's power extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end…" - United States v. Darby (1941) Can we get past the unconstitutional argument now and focus on finding the best policy? This issue has been settled for a long time, and if I don't know what I'm talking about, then I guess the Supreme Court doesn't either. Wed, 7 Apr 2010 03:01:38 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66322648 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66315685 That's not true. All of those programs clearly fall under the Commerce Clause and Congress's Taxing and Spending powers. It's reasonable to believe they should be left to the states, and Congress could do so if it wants, but those programs are not unconstitutional. See Art. I, s8. Wed, 7 Apr 2010 01:56:39 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66315685 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66313369 I do not want the government to have unlimited power, and I do not think it's operating with unlimited power now. In fact, our government has done nothing beyond what is provided in the Constitution during this entire administration. There is nothing illegal (or offensive as far as I'm concerned) about offering an optional survey. Wed, 7 Apr 2010 01:34:39 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66313369 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66312788 I appreciate it. I must say I think both sides would do well to take your advice. Wed, 7 Apr 2010 01:29:10 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66312788 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66296541 Oh ok, so then there's nothing wrong with it, he should pull out the gun. And what does "enumerate" have to do with any of this? Wed, 7 Apr 2010 00:07:34 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66296541 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66295752 No, not here at least. I don't think anything about Gibbs's answer showed that they were too bothered (or "afraid") by this. I don't know how he could have answered it much differently. What do you think the White House is supposed to say about comments like that? Wed, 7 Apr 2010 00:00:29 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66295752 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66293533 This is insanity. How about none of that JR? How about you come back down to reality, put down your guns, eggs or anything else you plan on using against someone trying to do an honest day's work, and just fill out the form like it says to do under the Constitution. Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:39:49 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66293533 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66292608 Why else would you feel the need to defend him? Whether he was serious or not, he's a commentator speaking on the radio. It was crazy of him to say that, too crazy to even warrant an explanation why. And EE is not paying him off, there is no "conspiracy" there. Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:32:03 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66292608 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66290528 Gibbs's comment that CNN and Erickson's wife should be concerned about his threat to pull a shotgun on a census worker is "intimidation?" What makes you feel the need to defend Erickson here? Gibbs's remarks were perfectly reasonable, unlike EE's. You are so blind from anger and hatred that you attack anything the Whitehouse does without considering how illogical it is. Are you personal friends with EE? Is he secretly paying you? Can't we all agree that its EE who should be attacked for suggesting such a thing may be a good idea? Especially in today's environment, when a militia group was just arrested for planning to kill police officers, any suggestion of violence is dangerous and irresponsible. Tue, 6 Apr 2010 23:15:24 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2010/04/06/white-house-jumps-on-the-intimidate-erickson-bandwagon/#IDComment66290528 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/31/open-thread-a-tale-of-two-photographs/#IDComment65124116 Well then we just disagree, because I don't see anything wrong with allowing cameras to something like that. Many families may welcome it as a way for more of the country to hear about and honor their son, and many others may not. There is no right/wrong way to do it. Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:14:45 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/31/open-thread-a-tale-of-two-photographs/#IDComment65124116 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/31/open-thread-a-tale-of-two-photographs/#IDComment65123443 Yes, any president should be challenged/argued with and refuted at every step, and should have to give honest and solid reasoning supporting every decision. The problem arises when politicians from the opposing party refute positions to achieve political goals instead of policy goals. But there is an incentive for politicians to do this, as supporting Obama on a policy that will be greatly successful will likely lead to his reelection, and keep the Repubs in the minority. The "never disrespect the CIC during a war" policy is a good example of one where we have seen major flip-flops, so is Mitt Romney's complete opposition to a healthcare bill almost identical to his own proposal, including the individual mandate. The larger problem is when the voters imitate this behavior. As a voter, there is no reason to ever change views based on politics. We are hurting ourselves and only helping the careers of politicians when we do. I believe this is not as clear to the American people as it once was. Thu, 1 Apr 2010 04:07:50 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/31/open-thread-a-tale-of-two-photographs/#IDComment65123443 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/31/open-thread-a-tale-of-two-photographs/#IDComment65119198 I apologize for the sarcasm, but I really don't understand what he has done to make you think that. Thu, 1 Apr 2010 03:31:10 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/31/open-thread-a-tale-of-two-photographs/#IDComment65119198 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/31/open-thread-a-tale-of-two-photographs/#IDComment65115003 Its just bad for the country when people defend disrespecting the President as CIC by claiming that the Left disrespected Bush. That doesn't justify anything. Worse, nobody can even criticize any poor treatment of Bush anymore if they now act the same way toward Obama. (Which includes painting Hitler mustaches on him, etc.) It was wrong then and its wrong now, doesn't matter who's the Pres. I think that our politicians have trained us to act like we are all politicians running for office ourselves, and therefore to attack each other politically. If people believe its wrong to disrespect our military's CIC, they shouldnt change their mind depending on who's in office. As the people, we need to focus on policy and only policy, not political strategy. Thu, 1 Apr 2010 02:55:34 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/03/31/open-thread-a-tale-of-two-photographs/#IDComment65115003